A chat about Any Questions, Chris Mason & Peter Hitchens

For those who listened to Any Questions on Radio 4 last night (or are about to do so again when it's repeated shortly), here's a little Twitter chat about it. 

It's a rather civilised one by the standards of Twitter, and I think that fair points were made all round.

Chris Mason is a great improvement on Jonathan Dimbleby. I think he'd also make a great replacement for Anita Anand on Any Answers - though, alas, I don't think my prayers will be answered on that front. 

Moreover, I do hope that the Monster Munch story below is true. I rather like pickle onion-flavoured Monster Munches, and haven't had one for aeons. I think I would have gratefully accepted Chris's kind offer.

Ron Swanson: Might actually be worth listening to Any Questions tonight. The BBC have, reluctantly I’m sure, invited Peter Hitchens on.
Chris Mason (to Ron Swanson), retweeted by Peter Hitchens): Thanks for listening. We don’t invite anyone onto the programme reluctantly. Peter is a brilliant debater and I’d love to have him back soon.
Ron Swanson (to Chris Mason): Chris, I don’t want a row with you, and this isn’t even aimed at you or Any Questions which has people from all views on. My issue is with the BBC in general. Have a good day.
Mike Wilson: Peter always gives his honest opinion with no flannel, you don’t have to agree with him to see he’s genuine, which is a breath of fresh air these days.
Ron Swanson: Chris is much better than Dimblebot too, IMHO. He actually lets people talk and doesn’t constantly interrupt. A good appointment. Thumbs up. As for Peter, I don’t always agree - which is good! I don’t want to always agree with someone. How boring. But what he says he believes. Rare.
Sir Radfoot Strongdoctor: I once encountered Mr Mason in a long queue at a post office in Hounslow. He was eating noisily on a packet of pickled onion flavoured Monster Munch. On catching my gaze he offered the packet to me and invited me to take one. I politely refused. "Suit y'self" he said.
Robert Miller (to Chris Mason): You gave him a fair hearing too. More than some other programmes did.

Anita Anand isn't beyond reproach

As a post on Friday here noted, Justin Webb was on the end of an official BBC 'correction and clarification' last week for inaccurately saying "Boris Johnson said the Royal Family's beyond reproach":

Wednesday 20th November 2019: Today, BBC Radio 4, 20 November 2019 

In a discussion about the impact of the Leadership election debate, we said Boris Johnson had said the Royal Family is beyond reproach. 

To be precise Boris Johnson had said: 'The institution of the monarchy is beyond reproach.'

As Anonymous noted in the comments, "Anita Anand isn't beyond reproach. On Any Answers? this afternoon she teed off with the same misrepresentation, asking whether listeners agreed with Boris Johnson that the Royal Family is beyond reproach".

She did indeed and, so, ought surely to receive the same ticking-off from the BBC?

Here for the record, is a transcript:

We can also talk about the Royal Family. After everything we've seen over the last couple of weeks, do you agree with Boris Johnson the Royal Family is really "beyond reproach"?

Any answers?

It's an old question, and I think we already know the answer, but here is is again:

Why did Any Answers?, where Britain had the chance to listen properly to one another & host was near invisible, go downmarket wth making callers who differ from Anita Anand's approved views have to justify themselves to her, while she intrudes, comments, interrogates, rudely?

And don't forget all her endless expressive noises - hums, ahems, oohs, ers, gurgles, etc!

Oh, and here's another question:

Was there ever anything so superfluous as Anita Anand telling the audience what are the subjects of Any Answers? Still, gives her the chance to make it sound like the Anita Anand Show, to use proprietorial language, prior to rude inappropriate interrogation. 

Alistair, thank you for that

Was Melanie Abbott channelling her inner Diane Abbott today?

I haven't listened to Any Answers in a while, mainly due to Anita Anand treating it as 'The Anita Anand Show', but I tuned in today to find a debut appearance as stand-in presenter from Radio 4 journalist Melanie Abbott.

As it was her debut and she's "very excited" about it, I won't rain on her parade too much. I preferred her to Anita, but some friendly advise really may be needed: (1) Don't interrupt so much (they're members of the public, not politicians); (2) Don't cut people off so abruptly as it sounds rude; and (3) Don't react like an over-sensitive hedgehog whenever a caller, in passing, criticises the BBC.

That latter exchange climaxed in a slight spat over the CBI's membership numbers, and it's worth quoting in its own right:

Melanie Abbott, BBC: (interrupting) Alistair McMillan in Glasgow, I'd like to come to you. So another...the deal should be put to the people again? What do you think?

Alistair from Glasgow: No, I don't think so because I don't...The thing is the whole...I rang in because I get rather annoyed with the hysteria that we hear from various panel members - and we heard it again yesterday - about chaos and catastrophe if there is a no deal. 'No deal' is a misnomer. It doesn't exist. There is no chance of us leaving in a no deal situation...

Melanie: (interrupting) Why do you think that?

Alistair: Well, I run a business. We export to around 120+ countries around the world, including every one in the EU. We've marched up the hill twice now towards a no deal and the last time it was literally within 24 hours we were told that it would not be a no deal. I have been very impressed by organisations like HMRC...

Melanie: (interrupting) So when you say there's no such thing you mean...

Alistair: Sorry?

Melanie: When you say there's no such thing as a no deal you mean you don't think it well ever happen?

Alistair: No. There's no such thing as a no deal because as we've found in the run-up to the two times when we were about to leave there are masses of small deals that have been done which actually give us what we need. And the only thing we needed on top of that would be an Article 24 agreement between the EU and the UK and things would basically then carry on as they are. The HMRC...

Melanie: (interrupting) We haven't been told about these small deals that are being done....

Alistair: (interrupting) I know. I quite agree with you. It's very frustrating. And I find it very frustrating that the BBC and other organisations choose not to report these. I have had...

Melanie: (interrupting) But we've got a business organisation, the CBI, saying that we must have a deal to protect the economy. That's 190,000 members. Can they be wrong?

Alistair: Well, no, it is not 190,000. No, it is not. They have...

Melanie: (interrupting) That's what it says on their website. 

Alistair: They have 2,500 members...

Melanie: (interrupting) Do you think they're lying...

Alistair: (crosstalk) They have 2,500 members.

Melanie: (crosstalk)...on their website about their members?

Alistair: Yes. They're not members. They don't have 190,000 members. They have affiliate organisations that have membership, which I belong to, but that doesn't mean they speak for me. There is no such thing as a no deal because there are masses of small deals and HMRC in particular have make sure, and also carriers...I have had guarantees from carriers that they will get our goods through because they've been working on getting this sorted out. The whole thing is that a lot of this is just hysteria, and the louder that these people call of chaos and catastrophe the more they seem to believe it themselves... 

Melanie: (interrupting) Alistair, thank you for that.

Naturally, I thought I'd check. 

The BBC's Melanie was quoting from the CBI's 'About Us' page which begins, "The CBI speaks on behalf of 190,000 businesses. Together they employ nearly 7 million people, about one-third of the private sector-employed workforce." 

Yet, according to Wikipedia, "The Confederation of British Industry is a UK business organisation, which in total speaks for 190,000 businesses, made up of around 1,500 direct and 188,500 indirect members." 

So who's right? The BBC's Melanie or businessman Alistair from Glasgow? 

Well, 1,500 direct members is roughly in the same tennis court as Alistair's 2,500 members figure - and surely sounds about right for the CBI's core membership number. The 190,000 businesses with the 188,500 indirect members is a much more nebulous concept. 

I can believe that the CBI is probably speaking for most of its 1-2,500 direct members but Melanie's claim that the CBI also speaks en masse for its 188,500 indirect members is far less believable. 

So I'm siding with Alistair from Glasgow. 

More trouble at t'mill

So, Anita Anand was apparently dropped from presenting this week's Any Answers (aka 'The Anita Anand Show') for speaking out on the BBC 'gender pay gap' issue. 

Oddly, she'll just-as-apparently be back on again next week. 

The BBC's answer to that Kevin Maguire tweet, if you're wondering, is that John Humphrys’s words weren't intended for public consumption, they were in private. 

Polls

"According to recent polling, if a referendum were held today Britain would vote to stay in", Anita Anand told us on Any Answers today. 

And she didn't fail to repeat the point either. 

How much recent polling has shown that or whether (as I suspect after Googling around) it's actually just that one single BMG poll for the Independent (showing 52% for Remain, 48% for Leave) I can't say for sure but, regardless, our Anita was certainly making the most of that 'recent polling' today.

(BMG's last pre-referendum poll last year predicted a 3% Remain victory. Their final pre-2017 general election poll predicted a 13% victory for Theresa May). 

Why oh why...?

I haven't listened to Any Answers for some time now. Listening today though shows that little has changed. 

Anita Anand's still there dominating the programme, turning it into The Anita Anand Show.

But, that said, she didn't seem as interventionist as I expected her to be this week. (I expected clucking on an industrial scale).

Just for fun though (Whatever!) I thought I'd count the amount of time Anita talked on today's edition to see whether my impression of her dominance was grounded in any reality whatsoever. (I counted very precisely, of course.)

The result?

Her voice accounted for 37% of the programme's airtime. Callers' voices accounted for 63%.

So Anita Anand talked for over a third of the programme's duration today.

As I say, she struck me as being unusually hands-off this week, so I suspect the ratio is usually even more in her favour.

As the callers today were full of interesting opinions, I'm still of the opinion that I'd like to hear less from Anita.

Make Any Answers a proper listeners' forum again. 

Anita Anand and Tom with the velvety voice.

The Any Questions from Crickhowell High School was a lively affair. Somehow the audience was entirely made up of shouty Corbynites who heckled and whooped loudly whenever anyone said something unCorbynist, so that once again Jonathan Dimbleby felt obliged to plead that the composition of the audience was Nothing To Do With The BBC. (“NTDWTBBC” )

The Shadow Defence Secretary Nia Griffith didn’t seem to agree with her leader on the matter of the link between terrorism and ‘our participation in conflict’.

Of course there is a link between terrorism and “our foreign policy” in as much as the cause-and-effect  theory is the pretext routinely parroted by Muslims to justify or rationalise terrorism. They know they can get away with it, since no-one knows history these days.

Unfortunately Anita Anand is back in the Any Answers chair, her voice as strident and her opinions as intrusive as ever. She’s a female version of James O’Brien.

“Julian Biddlecombe, I hope I pronounced your name properly William - from Gloucester”  she announced, though why the name ‘William’ should be pronounced ‘Julian’ escapes me. There were gremlins on the line so she moved on to Valerie Ward from Plymouth who skated on very thin ice by mentioning Ed Husain and Ayaan Hirsi Ali while Anand huffed impatiently in the background. Shortly she couldn’t resist interrupting to say that more Muslims have been killed by ISIS than by terrorists.

William came back, but faded away again, then onto the call that really brought out the morality police within Anita Anand.

“Tom Walsh is calling us from Wigan. Good afternoon Tom?”  

“Hello Anita.”  

“There’s a velvety voice. Tom what did you want to comment on?”  

“Too much time is spent pussyfooting around, not wanting to cause offence. We ought to tell it as it is. Some people want to harm us, to kill us.”.

“Mmmmm.”  

“Politicians keep going on [...] my mother used to say you can’t turn a bad apple ripe.”  

“I’m trying to understand what you’re saying. So who are the apples you’re talking about here, Tom?”  

“Well, we can’t go on as we are. Something different must be tried. Civil liberties have to be curtailed for the duration and I’m sure the vast majority of people would be prepared to forego some freedoms for safety.”  

“Tom what do you want them to do? What are the freedoms you want curtailed? Let’s put it out on the table. What is it you want done!”  

“Well we must be - we’re going to have to think the unthinkable.”  

“What is that?”  

“Limited internment." 

“For who, Tom?”  

“For terrorists?”  

“Yeah well, once somebody’s a terrorist I meant there’s a pretty final kind of internment, and that’s prison.”  

“Yes. But you sound like you want to go further than that, I’m trying to understand what it is you’re talking about.”  

“Something different.”  

“Which is what?”  

“Internment. House arrest. Greater powers for the police. I know people say this will act as a recruiting sergeant but we can see there’s no shortage of recruiters. Also life should mean life for terrorist offences, and they should be isolated from other prisoners. Going back to the apple theme, one bad apple spoils the barrel.”  

“Right. So you’re talking abut internment but for those people who’ve been tried as terrorists and identified as terrorists, I mean that happens when they go to jail doesn’t it?”  

“No, no, internment’s a different thing. People would be interned without trial actually for a limited period and only the more serious - during the war there were three categories.”  

“Mmmm.”  

“Ah, ones that were known to pose a threat and they were interned immediately and b, were the darker ones who had restrictions placed on them, no radios, they needed permission to travel etcetera and these are the things they’re going to have to try.” 

“So the 3,000 who are on the radar, pick them up immediately and put them in a - a what, a camp or something?”  

“Well the ones that we know, and don’t forget the authorities know lot of these people that are definite threats, and they should be interned. We’re fighting a war. Not a religion. we’re not fighting a religion, we’re not fighting a people, we’re fighting an ideology.”  

“Okay. Alright Tom, thank you very much indeed let’s go to another caller”.

The supposedly random phone-in

Here's an ITBB exclusive. (I half-spotted it. Sue fully-spotted it.)

It concerns BBC phone-ins like Any Answers and how - to put it plainly - they've been (partially) taken over by professional agitators (possibly not unlike some episodes of Question Time and Any Questions).

To quote Sue: "There ought to be a dedicated phone-in specially for them, and let them own up. AA is not the place. Maybe that's why Anita is employed, it's something to do with shared initials."

The first caller today was "Stephen Franklin from north-west London". As a keen BBC Watch reader I'm a big fan of Stephen whose regular complaints to the BBC against anti-Israel BBC bias have scored some successes. However, we've also had (h/t Sue) Helen Marks from Jews for Justice for Palestinians and prominent anti-Israel campaigner Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi in recent weeks.

Now, it's only because me and Sue are up on such things that we spotted this. It's our area. Lots of other callers beyond our area also strike me as sounding suspiciously (and very strongly so) like activists.

To quote Sue again: "It's a very unsatisfactory format, the supposedly random phone-in".

Another snapshot

And here's Anita Anand on this afternoon's Any Answers introducing the programme:

Well, as you have been hearing in the news, the first Muslim mayor of any major Western capital has been sworn in. I'd love to know from you today what does the election of Sadiq Khan do to our political status quo? What does it say about London? What does it say about the rest of the country? And what should parties take away from this? There have been accusations of anti-Semetic behaviour against Labour, Islamophobia against the Conservatives. What exactly is going on with our politics right now? And is the EU debate just going to exacerbate the very worst? What is it about our style of campaigning these days that obscures or maybe even destroys integrity? I don't know whether you saw, but Zak Goldsmith's sister Jemima criticised his campaign yesterday on Twitter saying "It's sad that Zak's campaign did not reflect who I know him to be - an eco-friendly, independent-minded politician with integrity." Your thoughts on that. And, yes, what about across the pond? We've just seen the anointing of Donald Trump as the Republican candidate presumptive. I'd love your thoughts on that. What would that kind of world be? All that, and I'd love to hear from you if you are a teacher or a parent. What have you made of the government's latest u-turn on academies?

And here's Anita interrupting a caller who was complaining about  people (like Anita) mentioning Sadiq's Muslims background:

It's signalling though. I mean, I understand what you're saying and I hear what you're saying but there have been a lot of editorials in foreign newspapers also saying, 'Look, this is extraordinary. We've been writing about the tone of this campaign' - and they have, in America, in Pakistan for example, which is the country where Sadiq's par...Khan's parents came from and yet, you know, despite everything, this is a city...and in the words of one editorial...'enlightened enough' to vote for a man of that heritage nonetheless. So you don't want them to mention it at all and yet this is now...this is a ball that's rolling all over the world.

Any Answers?

Today's Any Answers was wholly given over to the Labour anti-Semitism row. 

Anita Anand is another of those BBC types who pronounces anti-Semitic “anti-Semetic” (see Sue earlier). She did it throughout the programme.

She also didn't seem to have much of a clue what 'BDS' involved either, apparently thinking it's all about 'no platforming'. (This arose when Israel-bashing BDS campaigner Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi rang in and took centre stage).

Those defending Israel got the worse end of the stick from the ever-interventionist Anita, but there was a fair spread of opinion and some of the contributions were well worth listening to (especially the octogenarian Shirley Murgraff from Hackney). 

Naturally, there were plenty of 'eyebrow-raising' moments too. Mine shot up Mars-wards at Andy from Edinburgh complaining: 

We don't do that with any other country. When we criticise Italy we're not anti-Catholic. So what's wrong with criticising Israel but we're not anti-Semitic? 

His point (if you followed it!) bangs up straight against an obvious counter-point (though it clearly wasn't obvious enough for Anita to have made it!):

"We" don't criticise Italy, do "we"? "We" do criticise Israel however. And "we" have a very bad habit of only criticising Israel. And that's what makes "us" strongly appear to be anti-Semitic.

"I'm confused"

Another reliable source of BBC bias is Anita Anand on Any Answers. Here's how she began this week's edition: 

So tell me, just between friends: Are you finding the EU referendum debate a bit...well...boring? If you are, what can the politicians do to engage you? What will Brexit do to the UK's skills base? Is it going to weaken it? Is it going to strengthen it? Particularly keen to hear from you if you're running a business which maybe employs a significant proportion of EU workers. What happens the day after if we leave? 

Some leading questions and a specific invitation to people who are likely to be pro-Remain. How very Anita in its impartiality!

Still, there was a fair spread of opinion and little of of the blatant one-sided hectoring from the presenter that can sometimes mar the programme.

There were, however, a few callers who sounded as if they were auditioning for Down the Line and Anita didn't entirely refrain from hectoring either - such as this call which I would be seriously failing in my duties as a blogger not to transcribe in full (as it's pure comedy gold):

Caller: Afternoon. I'm really confused now. For years and years and years I've been a firm federal Europist. With David Cameron's shenanigans - because nobody really believes what he said and it was all done to placate the Tory Party...

Anita (interrupting): What shenanigans are you talking about? The renegotiation - that he could renegotiate from the inside...aha?  

Caller: The renegotiations, or whatever you'd like to call it, yeah. They're all done to favour the internal workings of the Tory Party not the national interest. So I then went to 'Out' and I'm now dithering because I really think a strong Europe is a good thing to go, but I actually want to....

Anita (interrupting): I'm confused. So hang on a minute....No. I'm confused. I just want to chart your journey. So you were a strong 'In-y' and now you're an 'Out-y' and I'm still trying to find the bridge that led you from one camp to the other there. 

Caller: Because I don't believe what Cameron, and I actually want to...

Anita (interrupting): But, but, but...to not believe what Cameron did means you thought there was a problem. Being an 'In-y' there was something very, very wrong with the status quo that you wanted a renegotiation and you didn't believe that it happened?

Caller: I don't think what he came out with wasn't already there. I think it was just presented as a new way of looking at it. 

Anita: OK, but now you've gone from being happy with what was the status quo to being very unhappy with it and wanting to get out and I'm just wondering what it was that pushed you over that edge?

Caller: Well, what I'm happy with..what I'm unhappy with is the way Cameron went about it, and I want to vote 'Out' purely to show I don't want Cameron to crow on the basis he approved a negotiation and we all won.

Anita (interrupting): So the future of Europe is dependent on you basically delivering a slap to the Prime Minister? 

Caller: Well, that's my dilemma at the moment because I actually firmly believe in Europe but I actually want to give a slap to the Prime Minister. And I can't find any other way of doing it. But there's a 'yes or a no' not a 'yes and swing about' bit. 

Anita: OK, all right, thank you very much.

A-ha

The lion's share of today's Any Answers was spent discussing the migrant crisis. 

Here's how Anita Anand framed the discussion this week (persisting, as ever, in calling it 'the refugee crisis'):

So, as you've been hearing in the news, the number of Syrian refugees heading for the Turkish border has nearly doubled in 24 hours. 35,000. What should we do about this? How much should we be doing for refugees? $10 billion raised by an international effort this week, but let's talk about the number of people you think this country should be welcoming. And what about unaccompanied children in those camps in Calais? Does their need cross the red lines regarding who we do and do not take? Love your thoughts on this. I know you have a lot to say. 

But first...it's leading the bulletins. It's also foremost in your minds this afternoon. Let's talk about the refugee crisis.

Anita was as hands-on as ever, especially as most of the callers were against us taking in lots more migrants/refugees. She did plenty of interrupting and contradicting and added a couple of 'mini-editorials' of her own between callers:

OK, right. you're happy to pay a premium but these refugees must be kept near their homeland, Turkey, Jordan.  Thank you very much Peter. I'm going to take another call on this because we did hear the King of Jordan saying, 'Look, we have always said yes to the West. We have always said we will take in all the refugees who are crossing our border. But we cannot take any more.' They are talking about a lack of space, a lack of infrastructure. Where do those people then go? Where does that overflow go? Elizabeth Fitzgibbon is calling us from Elgin in Moray. Hello Elizabeth. Hello. What did you want to say?

No, I totally take the point and Margaret thank you very much indeed. Margaret, you bring up the point about paedophiles. I just want to read a startling figure that's just leaped out at me and there's a report by Europol that was released on Monday that says "There are 10,000 missing children, raising concerns that these children might have fallen into the hands of traffickers". I mean, some may just be accounted in the system because of this mass movement of people but I think that is quite a terrifying figure. Colin Pine calling us from Hornchurch in Essex. Good afternoon, Colin. Yes. What did you want to say Colin?

Talking of Colin from Hornchurch, here he is in mid flow near the beginning of his fine contribution. Anita soon interrupts to 'correct' him:

Colin: What you've got to remember and the audience has got to remember is the Prime Minister has pledged that we take 20,000 in the next five years....

Anita (interrupting): Next ten years. Over the next ten years. 

Colin: Ten years.

Anita: A-ha.

Well, that was as much news to me as it was to poor Colin - and, I would bet, to Anita's BBC colleagues too! They've persistently reported (as has the rest of the media) that David Cameron's 20,000 Syrian refugees pledge was for over the next five years. Anita might want to take it up with her colleagues.

And then there's the number of refugees at the Zaatari camp in Jordan... 

Here she is, talking to a caller called Joanne, who she'd introduced as having "actually worked with refugees" (The sigh in Anita's voice when it turned out that Joanne was also against bringing them here - when they could stay in existing, safe camps - was very evident to this listener):

I mean, places like this..the Zaatari camp...I don't know how many millions are in there at the moment...

Well, according to Wikipedia, there were estimated to be around 83,000 there at the last count, so - unless Wikipedia is out by a huge margin - Anita got that massively wrong too.

Oh Anita! That would never have happened if you'd just sat back and let your callers speak!

Anita's Got a Lovely Bunch of...Refugees

Yesterday's Any Answers was worth listening to. Yes, Anita Anand clucked at some of her callers (none of whom were playing ball on the 'migrant children in Calais' question), but she wasn't too bad this week and her callers were interesting throughout.

The only point to be made about it here is that Anita Anand persists in talking about 'refugees' rather than 'migrants'. 

She's been quite dogged about doing so over the months (eg. "this refugee tide", "a worsening refugee crisis", "but as columns of refugees attempt to gain entry into Austria and our screens are filled with images of long and beleaguered lines of human being trying to get out of one area and get into another in Europe, I'm asking for your thoughts on this") and she was doing it again this week:

Is David Cameron right to say that by taking refugees from the camps in Europe we encourage many more to risk their lives in the sea? 

I know there are those of you who want to talk about refugees.

She keeps doing so despite the growing official admission of what a lot of people suspected all along - that most of these people are not refugees, they are economic migrants. (Even Sweden and the European Commission are admitting it now.)

Anita did mention the m-word (well, one of the m-words) in her introduction though:

'A bunch of migrants'. Those four words uttered at the despatch box this week at PMQs have caused a storm of controversy. Just what do you make of the words chosen by the Prime Minister in his taunt to Jeremy Corbyn? And what of the sentiment behind those words? 

"A storm of controversy?" Rod Liddle, writing in The Sunday Times, agrees with Sue here about that (and I agree with both of them):

It wasn’t just the ol’ Grauniad; the BBC went into overdrive, too, interrupting its hitherto non-stop news coverage of a mild form of dengue fever — aka the zika virus — which has affected almost nobody in the UK and has killed nobody anywhere. They went into “bunch fury” overdrive. 

So did the opposition politicians, beside themselves with outrage that anyone could use a word like “bunch” when referring to people. And you are left with the distinct impression that either they are all mentally ill or that this is a confected outrage that has no purchase whatsoever beyond the opposition front bench and the BBC PM studio.

Framing the debate

There wasn't time to discuss the subject, apparently, on Any Answers, but still, this is how Anita Anand initially framed what might have been the discussion on events in Germany:

The widespread sexual assault of scores of women in Germany, that's sparking heated debate. Is this kind of spectacle inevitable when you let outsiders in? Are some hijacking the crimes of a few to shut the door on asylum seekers who truly need help? Is this a clash of ideology?  

Good things

Has Anita Anand taken notice of all the flak that's recently been coming her way for her "hectoring and disapproving and opinionated" behaviour on Any Answers? 

I think she might have done given because her behaviour on this week's programme could hardly have been more different (for the most part). It really sounded to me as if she was deliberately on her best behaviour, taking a much more hands-off approach to her callers, allowing them to speak at length, asking them non-loaded questions (sparingly), not huffing and puffing at them if they said something she didn't approve of and not sounding as if she was pushing her own opinion either. Only near the very end, when an elderly lady who pronounced Kenya as 'Keenyer' and began arguing that Cecil Rhodes wasn't a racist appeared, did a bit of Anita's old disapproving tone begin to resurface, but even here she held herself back from actually hectoring the lady. 

The result was refreshing and interesting, and long may it continue that way. 

And while I'm giving credit where credit's due, this week's Dateline London was also refreshing and interesting with a decent range of views and some of my favourite Dateline guests - Thomas Kielinger, Agnes Poirier, Alex Deane and John Fisher Burns. 

They talked about the UK and the EU, the Middle East and Libya, and...of course...Donald Trump.

The mere mention of Donald Trump brought derisive laughter and some of the familiar kind of criticisms of The Donald that we've been hearing across the BBC for what feels like forever and a day now. However, John Fisher Burns of The New York Times did make the point that the second part of Donald Trump's statement about not letting Muslims into the U.S. - the bit about "until we can figure out what the hell's going on" (to paraphrase the point) - will strike a chord with a lot of people everywhere, and Alex Deane got to put a counter point to Thomas Kielinger, Agnes Poirier and Gavin Esler:

Well, I have bad news for you. That is, we - that is both 'we' the people sitting around this table and 'we' the people who might watch Dateline London are not Donald Trump's perfect audience. We are not the people he's seeking to communicate with and in the efforts he's making to win the nomination from his party he's doing very well. And when in fact you say you want to 'ameliorate some of his outrageous statements' it's those that mean he does best in that environment. 

And unless I've been misunderstood, and I don't think this was going on at this table at all, it has been very obvious that many people don't want him to succeed and I would suggest to those people that sneering at him is the worst tactic of all because when people sneer and say 'You know, this statement's been outrageous or that view is unacceptable' people who are deeply afraid about their children and their lives say, 'Actually, he speaks...I thought he had a point but now you say what he says is unsayable. He speaks for me. He's the only one that's saying it'.  

And while I'm praising stuff, I was going to write my own words of appreciation for David Aaronovitch's excellent Radio 4 discussion, What is IS? - one of the most interesting programmes from the BBC this year; however, as commenters at Biased BBC have put it so well already, I shall simply copy-and-paste their comments below and add 'Amen' to them:

Stuart Beaker

December 19, 2015 at 11:42 pm

David Aaronovitch What is IS? R4 22.15, repeated from earlier in the week.

I have said before that we should be prepared to recognise and praise good programmes that the BBC produces, and journalists who present them. This was such a one, I think. I thought this kind of discussion had died a long time ago for the BBC. It was informative, it failed to patronise the listener, and above all it did not appear to be biased.

I am unsure whether Mr Aaronovitch has been pilloried here before, but this was indisputably a good programme, going into fascinating detail about the eschatological basis for Islamic jihad and (mainly) Isis, but also other apocalyptic Islamist groups. I found out much that I had not heard before, and the cross-referencing to non-Muslim cults through history seemed sound to me (I am much more familiar with Christian heresies and cults), which gave me confidence to trust what was being said about Islam in its radical formats.

Others might pick holes in its approach, contents, or conclusions, but that is not the point – it set out an ‘honest stall’, whose content invited comment and perhaps argument, but not the justifiable blanket condemnation that so much of the Corporation’s programming achieves now. I say well done!

chrisH

December 20, 2015 at 1:08 am

Agree entirely Mr Beaker.
I praised it earlier in the week, alongside Jonathan Freedlands programme on the Shoah film.
Neither were prefect-but Aaronovitch asked good questions,and genuinely seemed to want to know the answers. He was honest in his own limitations ,and inability to understand the eschatological implications of IS and what fuelled them.
Which I found refreshing and informative from a BBC who always seem to think they KNOW what answers their agenda requires-and will try to mould the quotes and soundbites for the editing suite to “analyse”.
Praise where praise is due-if only the BBC would not insult our intelligence with forever trying to cover Muhammads arse…the facts speak for themselves, and all involved in this programme gave us enough truth to draw our own conclusions,,,felt the Jonestown parallel failed, but at least they didn`t gloss over Islams ultimate aim…sad to say, it`s so unusual to get such a show these days though.

The Jonathan Freedland programme that chrisH praised there, Shoah in Jerusalem, was also exceptional and informative, containing several lump-in-the-throat moments. I'd urge you to give it a listen - and to read Jonathan Freedland's accompanying Guardian article, The day Israel saw Shoah, as your 'weekend long read'.

Browbeater Anita

My bumper Christmas edition of the Spectator arrived through the door yesterday and I had a good laugh today reading James Delingpole's Twenty things I will ban when I am elected your Dictator For Life in 2016. 

(Of course, some of you might have read it for free online, but I'm not going to let my inner fury about that spoil my fun!)

No.9 in James's to-ban list is the following:

9. That frightful woman who does BBC Radio 4’s Any Answers. She’s just awful: so hectoring and disapproving and opinionated in an all-too-predictable BBC direction. Any Answers is supposed to be where Real Britain responds to all the drivel they’ve been infuriated by on Any Questions. Not a place for them to get sneered at yet again.

You may have read something like that on this very blog many, many times before but it's good to know that we're not alone. 

Following on from the previous post, noting the BBC's online downplaying of the findings of anti-Semitism by Ofsted, guess how Anita Anand - the "frightful woman" in question - introduced the subject today? 

Yes, by also completely cutting out the anti-Semitic element. Oh, and by removing the Muslim element too:

Good afternoon. Welcome to Any Answers? Ofsted has discovered unregistered schools in Birmingham which are peddling what they are calling "misogynistic and homophobic" education.

No, Anita, Ofsted are actually, unequivocally, calling it "misogynistic, homophobic and anti-Semitic" education. Why on earth is Anita Anand also missing the 'anti-Semitic' part out? 

She continued, still avoiding the 'Muslim' question: 

So, is the home school system itself too open to abuse? Do your children maybe go to an unregistered school?

Ah yes, the familiar charge against 'home school' teaching - never a favourite with pro-state education types!

And Anita's next question, generalising away from the 'Muslim' question?:

Should we say 'no' to all types of segregated learning? What about faith schools? Are they OK? I mean, they are religiously exclusive too. I'd love your thoughts on that. 

Her first caller, however - Neil Winton - came straight back at her, albeit politely not putting her in the frame:

The first question gave me a bit of a problem because it was explained as a story about corrupt education in schools and it didn't mention the crucial element of the newspaper story that it came from - that this was a Muslim education institute. Your chairman should have explained this so that it wasn't completely mystifying to your audience and your four fearless opinion formers should have mentioned it too, but they all skirted around the issue and didn't mention the fact that these were... these schools being criticised were Muslim schools. 

"Hmm", said Anita in an unambiguously sceptical way.

That seems to me [continued Neil] to be rather a shirking of responsibility on the chairman's part, apart from the participants too. 

Anita then leaped in:  

Well, I think...I think the thing that was important from the Ofsted point of view was not that they were Muslim schools but that they were unregistered schools. They didn't investigate them on the premise that they were teaching Islamic teachings. They were investigating them because they had unregistered and...not approved or DPA-cleared teachers who were teaching pupils, that some of them were dirty. That was...that was the reason that they were investigated and that was the reason that they were talking about there.

Neil leaped back at her:

No, there were three points. The points were that they were being taught homophobia and, erm, anti-...er...Jewish...er...

"Anti-Semetic?" offered Anita, interrupting [and pronouncing it exactly as I transcribed it - ie. as 'anti-Semetic' rather than 'anti-Semitic'] - thus obviously revealing that she knew about that aspect of the Ofsted report all along (so why not mention it earlier?)

...anti-Semitic, yeah. So that gives the clue I think as to what we're talking about here [continued Neil] that your chairman...

Anita began interrupting again, saying "But what exactly...yeah", but Neil ploughed on: 

...and your panellists wouldn't talk about there.

As per James Delingpole, the hectoring presenter of Any Answers? [as her tone really did sound pretty 'hectoring' here] then disapprovingly huffed (as if that wasn't a good enough reason by itself to ring Any Answer?):

Well, apart from berating them what was the point you wanted to make?

Neil, having made the main point he wanted to make, he could make no other immediate answer than: 

Well, apart from that, well, there was no point in having answers to a question where the main point isn't mentioned...

...which, obviously, brought Ms Anand panicking right back in, "All right, well, let me...let...", but Neil's attempts to continue and give that other "point"..:

...But the second is...but the second is....

...were halted by Anita's "All right, well, let me...let me put a question to you if you don't have a point. I will put a question to you", but Neil was up to the challenge and charged on:

I do. The second item was on Donald Trump and how outrageous he is about his references to Muslim immigration. Your participants have fallen into the very trap that makes Donald Trump so appealing to some people. They didn't mention it themselves, so they censored themselves on the previous question and then they had the audacity to criticise Donald Trump for actually mentioning what some people think is the truth.

All credit though to Anita here for not instantly indulging in her usual behaviour and responding, "OK, that's interesting. So you would actually say that Trump dares to tread where others don't?"

"Erm", began Neil.

"And you applaud him for that?", continued Anita, not allowing him an immediate response but seemingly thinking aloud and saying, "I mean I want to know where you're coming from as far as...I mean, if we're coming onto the Trump point of view..."

Neil continued:

Well, we come onto the issue of freedom of speech and will the BBC censor that? And...

Guess what happened there? Go on, go on, go on, go on! Have a guess!

Answer: Anita crashed back in. Here's the exchange:

Anita: I'm not censoring...

Neil: [hard to decipher the first bit as Anita was talking over him...]...all the time.

Anita:....Look...

Neil: ...but you're not doing it now. No.

Anita: Neil, there's not much point talking about censorship when I'm asking you direct questions and allowing you time to speak. Tell me whether you think Donald Trump is speaking for you and whether there should be more of that kind of sentiment that's expressed.

Neil: Well, he's not speaking for me but he does attempt to tell the truth as he sees it. and...

Anita: Well, everybody tries to do that Neil, but is that something that...

Neil: Yes they do but when your audience want to ban him...and...

Anita: OK.

Neil: ...some people don't but we don't want to ban him. We want to hear what he's got to say and disagree if we do...

Anita: OK.

Neil: ...and...

Anita: OK, and a direct question to you Neil: Do you disagree with what Donald Trump has been saying?

Neil: Yes, I do disagree, yes. 

Anita: OK. OK. Thank you very much.

As soon as Neil had gone, Anita did what she so often does. She read out the phone number for Any Answers? and continued the argument with the previous caller - with the added benefit (for her) of him having gone and no longer being able to answer back!

She started, chewing on the same bone, by saying "No censorship here. You're all welcome to call", and then introduced her next caller by going straight back to Square One - ignoring the chief inspector's concerns about anti-Semitism and focusing on her original point: 

Good afternoon. Now you also wanted to speak about this Ofsted inspection. So let me make it very clear: Ofsted. They made a report on unregistered schools. That's what they were talking about. And their main worry, according to the chief inspector, was misogynistic, homophobic education being taught, teachers who were not registered and not cleared in any sense of the word. And also lack of hygiene in one particular school was fairly disgusting in their...Chris, what did you want to say about this?

Quite what Chris said, or anyone else said, in response to that I really can't say and I'd had enough of Anita again by this time....and, amazingly, we were still only five minutes into the programme. 

James Delingpole's Speccie piece was meant to be light-hearted festive fun, but his point Number 9 is both spot on and bears repeating in the light of what's gone before:

9. That frightful woman who does BBC Radio 4’s Any Answers. She’s just awful: so hectoring and disapproving and opinionated in an all-too-predictable BBC direction. Any Answers is supposed to be where Real Britain responds to all the drivel they’ve been infuriated by on Any Questions. Not a place for them to get sneered at yet again.

I suspect Neil Winton would second (or third) that!

Anita Anand again

A couple of comments have appeared today on a much earlier thread here, doubtless prompted by Anita Anand's behaviour on today's extended Any Answers. 

As you may miss reading them, I thought I'd also post them here:

I can't stand the woman - her listening skills are appalling, she interrupts and imposes her own opinions constantly in a high-handed and disdainful manner. So much for freedom of speech! Often I'm frustrated that a sensible, thoughtful and intelligent caller is cut short by her without having been properly understood, and I often turn the programme off, even though I'm keen to hear what people want to say, because she has annoyed me so much.

I agree wholeheartedly with the opinion of 'Anonymous'. I do not need Mrs Anand to censor other people's opinions for me. Nor am I interested in her opinion, largely because it is tiresomely BBC-predictable. Her job is to facilitate the communication and comprehension of her callers' points, to seek clarification when needed, and to impartially challenge the opinions and assumptions they hold. BUT ..... without favour, and certainly without the large dose of political correctness she use to distort and suppress those opinions. She really should not be entrusted with the delicate job of presenting a cross-section of the nation's views. I found the thinly-veiled, clumsy censorship Anand employed this evening on 'her' programme deplorable. I have never before been moved to write any response to what I have read or heard in the media, but her behaviour this evening was truly shocking. 'Free speech' is not only for those politically correct employees of the BBC such as Mrs Anand.

Oddly, Anita's behaviour on today's edition wasn't anywhere near as bad as it can be for the first 40 or so minutes. It's only when the criticism of Islam began at just after the 40-minute mark that Anita really got going. 

I didn't have much sympathy with her first victim here who advocated dumping any jihadist's friends and families who ought to have known what they were up to on a remote Scottish island [why ruin a remote Scottish island?] and ended by advocating force-feeding pork to anyone convicted of jihadist activity...

....though hearing her mount her high horse and then seek solace in the arms of the following, strongly pro-Muslim caller was certainly quite something to hear, and I urge you to listen to it (as a bit of light relief)!....

....but her treatment of the Turkish lady (beginning at 46:52) who argued what might be characterised as 'the Douglas Murray line' on Islam (that Islam needs its own reformation) came in for exactly the kind of treatment described in the comments above. Anita kept saying she could understand the point the lady was making - even though it was perfectly clear to me what she was saying. It wasn't a pleasant listen.

Another week, another 'Anita Anand experience' then.

Let's change the subject

Those startling UK population projections were also the starting point for Anita Anand's Any Answers this week, and I think Anita was trying to do exactly what the BBC online team behind that BBC News website report were trying to do - to spin the ONS stats away from immigration and onto the ageing population issue:

The thing is you said that it's about population growth but when you break down the figures for the UK you've got about half - maybe 51% edging - coming net migration but half of that growth is coming from the fact that people are living longer. They're not dying at the rate they used to die before.  

But the numbers would suggest that the world is going to be more crowded. People are living...I mean apart from the fact that people...and I keep stressing, and I know there are people who want to talk about immigration...we will, of course, if you want to talk about that, we will...but putting these statistics: 51% of the growth that we are talking about for 2027 is going to come from immigration and about 50%, just under 50%, is going to come from the fact that medicine is better, that doctors know what to do with this and end of life better (sic), that we live a lot longer - ten, twenty years longer than we did before. That's why we're getting full up. 

When Anita Anand  repeatedly asserts that around 50% of the projected population growth comes from "the fact that people are living longer" rather than immigration she's misrepresenting (intentionally or otherwise) what the ONS is saying. 

The ONS report itself states:

Thus about 68% of the projected increase in the population over the period mid-2014 to mid-2039 is either directly attributable to future migration (51% of projected national population projections), or indirectly attributable to future migration through its effect on births and deaths (17% of projected growth).

Trying to change the focus of the debate, as Anita seemed to be trying to do there and as the BBC's main online report on the story also seemed to be trying to do (see previous post), may serve the BBC's objectives, but it is fundamentally dishonest, isn't it?

Unfortunately for Anita, her callers yesterday were a cussed lot and kept going firmly off-message on every subject, so immigration kept coming up whether she liked it or not. 

Some, of course, still don't want us to have that debate - as you can see from Anita's introduction yesterday:

The UK population is set to increase beyond 70 million in the next 12 years, so I just want to know how you reacted to that news. It provoked one of the most ferocious debates I think we've heard on Any Questions for some time. Is this a future strain on public services? Is it a widening of our economic base? You heard Michael Heseltine just a moment ago saying that it was a dangerous kind of debate engendered by this subject. "I know the sort of fears that are conjured up and, look, it isn't new. We had it with Enoch Powell, " he said. Your thoughts very welcome.

That, incidentally, is Anita's second use of Enoch Powell's name within the past month. Only three weeks ago, if you recall, another of her introductions (concerning some anti-immigration remarks from Theresa May) included the following:

Perhaps you thought she was evoking the ghost of Powell when she should have been evoking the spirit of the Great British Bake Off? Do get in touch and let me know.

She clearly has a thing about Enoch Powell.


P.S. This whole edition of Any Answers was an enjoyably strange listen. Callers went off-message in all manner of directions.

The section on Syria, for example, seemed to bring the entire UK branch of the We Love Bashar Al-Assad Society onto Radio 4's airwaves - and Anita Anand did not approve.

Anita's habit of showing her disapproval at every turn hasn't gone unnoticed by others either:

Repeater Anita

Oh dear, I seem to be turning into a politician!

I promised not to keep banging on about Anita Anand on Any Answers, lest I bore you to death with repetition, but, alas, it's time for a u-turn...

Here's how Anita, in characteristic fashion, introduced today's first topic for discussion.

Please imagine you're studying English Comprehension (if such a subject still exists) for your A-level (or A-level equivalent). The question on your exam paper might read: "Examine the following statement. What side of the argument do you think the speaker is on?":

So what did you make of the Home Secretary Theresa May's speech on immigration this week? What did it do for community cohesion do you think? Was she saying what you're thinking or was she stoking racial tension in her positioning as a potential leader? 

My answer (and I'll show my working) is that the speaker, Anita Anand, wasn't on Theresa May's side but was betraying a strong pro-immigration bias instead. Why? Well:

(1) Because her first angle on the Home Secretary's speech was to worry about community cohesion - always the main concern of politically correct types across the British Establishment (from politicians and the police to social work administrators and the BBC), as shown by the backside-covering cover-ups in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, etc, etc.

(2) Because of her deliberate use of an old 2005 Conservative Party election slogan ("Are you thinking what we're thinking?") that has become a favourite on the Left as 'proof' of the failure of Tory 'dog whistle politics' to win elections (given that the Conservatives were assumed - rightly - to be talking about immigration yet still lost that election [to the election-winning Tony Blair]).

(3) Because of her 'double whammy' final clause, combining "stoking racial tension" with "positioning as a potential leader" - implying that Mrs May's comment were both wicked and cynical.

Personally, were I marking myself there (like the BBC Complaints department), I'd give my answer a glowing 'Fully upheld'. 

Actually, that wasn't the end of Anita's introduction. And if you think the above was outlandishly biased, then get a load of what came next:

Perhaps you thought she was evoking the ghost of Powell when she should have been evoking the spirit of the Great British Bake Off? Do get in touch and let me know.

...to which the only response is surely: 'Wow!!!' (and not in a good way).

If that's impartial broadcasting then I'm Theresa May.

(Just for the record: I'm not Theresa May).